About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
at least he's not going to go to the u.n.-- which he's now entitled to, whether it's the international criminal court or other agencies-- and keep pushing this unilateral recognition agenda. so nobody who's made that connection publicly or even privately to us but that is the kind of thing that's being looked at and i think quietly encouraged but then what the president kept saying today is pretty quickly when the talks start it can't be around these peripheral issues. it's got to be about security and borders. and once you settle those, the other issues go away like settlements. borders issue will settle the settlements issue. >> brown: very briefly margaret. even today while the president is there you have rockets coming in from gaza. is that seen as having any immediate impact or is that just more a sense of difficult these are very much still out there. >> i think it's the latter, jeff. if you had big demonstrations from the west bank that would be different but in fact it helps the president prove his point which is that the palestinian authority in the west bank has been doing a
doesn't want to be the one to go to the u.n. and say i have the evidence of the chemical weapons when it turns out there isn't. >> and he also committed himself about if they use chemical weapons. he hasn't said exactly what he would do. but chemical weapons, you don't just pick them up and bring them out of the country. they're in old, leaky containers and you can kill more people moving them around than you can leaving theam in place. gwen: a timing question. one of the disagreements the president and netanyahu had going -- going into this was about timing, when iran would be able to get a nuclear weapon. the president said only a week ago, we think it will be about a year. and they agreed to disagree quietly. >> that's one way to look at that time, but another perspective, the president actually put a time line on iran getting a nuclear weapon and that put him in contrast to the position of the u.s. intelligence community which does not present this as a question of time. they present it as a question of political will, the decision to build a bomb. and president obama sort of --
, we're on the highway. the israelis are ice rated. we went to the u.n. we'll go to the international criminal court. i feel they think there's no reason to compromise. i feel the open sesame is just to get the basics. if the president can get the palestinians and the israelis to talk about two states for two people it might sound like a cliche but i think it's the one thing that could have an impact on this because it deals with... does each side recognize that they are palestinian and jewish nationalists movements? the israelis are willing to do it but the palestinians are not. >> brown: we're going to focus tomorrow specifically on the palestinians. i'm wondering on the israeli side, is it fair to say that their real focus now as a security issue is much more on iran than on palestinian relations? >> iran i think in the exit polls only rated 10% of the people said that it was the top priority in the israeli election. it really didn't play in the election campaign. i think it does remain a threat, an existential threat. as the president said it's a year away before they get the bomb
at the u.n. last fall. iran maintains its nuclear program is solely for peaceful energy production. as the arab uprisings convulse the president viewed a missile battery of the iron dome defense system-- heavily financed by the u.s., which knocked scores of rockets from the sky during brief november war with gaza. the president's remarks heavy with allusions to millenia of jewish history in the holy land and a nod to the broad purposes of his trip. >> across this region the winds of change bring both promise and peril. so i see this visit as an opportunity to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds between our nations, to restate america's unwavering commitment to israel's security, and to speak directly to the people of israel and to your neighbors. >> warner: he was referring to another focus of this visit: to listen to what israeli and palestinian leaders say they're willing to do to revive the stalled peace process between them. later at a press conference at the prime minister's jerusalem residence, the president was asked about yesterday's possible chemical weapons attack in northern
in the u.n. or the international criminal court. >> we'll see what comes out. and then john kerry is going to follow up on this. but i suspect that from the way that the wording is coming out there may be a softening of positions on both sides on this in terms of settlement. a restraining settlement activity. >> rose: and palestinian initiatives in the u.n.. >> right. >> rose: okay. the last one is empower secretary of state kerry. >> he hasn't done that yet. he really needs to do it because he's given this speech which has raised expectations sky-high about what the united states is going to do in the peace process. and if he doesn't back kerry up, because kerry is the one that is going to be doing it, kerry won't be able to succeed. >> my guess is knowing secretary kerry and knowing secretary clinton, that secretary kerry will give this because he passionately is interested in this more tension, individually on his own, than secretary clinton. >> he says it that the time, sorry, that the time for middlest envoy is over. >> he is a secretary that is widely perceived as being very close to
side, they had elections. the u.n. validated the results. they weren't fraudulent. they were a lot more honest than they were in afghanistan. they have a parliament. the council of representatives. they passed a budget recently. there is political life in iraq. it's--y. it's-- whatever malikis an authoritarian figure but he's nothing like a saddam by anybody's estimation. so i just-- while there are reasons to be concerned in iraq and reasons to worry about the future, i don't think we should paint an entirely dark picture. and i think if you asked iraqis you'd get different perspectives. if you asked the kurds, i think they're glad there was the invasion. they have more autonomy than they've ever had before, having relations with the turks. if you ask the shi'a, they were empowered but there are probably-- despite the fact they're empowered, there are elements that resent the americans. resent the invasion because they were lodged from the top of the pyramid but theyt miss the americans, many of them, because we're not there in a kind of protective capacity. i think there would be a wh
. it was a tired rock 'n' roll scene in u.k. and here came the beatles with this incredible new sound and took everybody my storm. >> and everyone you see today is going to be humaning those tunes. >> without a document. people were beginning to hum tunes in the rock 'n' roll scene in the u.k. just prior to the release of the union -- album but by the time this one came out it changed everything because those songs were so incredibly humble. they had great harmonies and everything that young kids were looking for. >> were they the epitome of the innocent mop topped beatles? because they changed radically in a way that not many other bands do. >> rather than changed radically i always like to say that the beatles were constantly evolving. they evolved with almost every album, every single that they put out but i guess it was the last of the so-called innocents. it was right before the swinging 1960's took hold and the beatles really had the sound. >> and then with the lonely heart club we har a totally new sound of the beatles. was that as popular back then as the early cheerful stuff? >> oh, w
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)